Mandating Coverage of Contraceptives Is Bad Social Policy

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health policy arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has issued its long-awaited report making recommendations to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on mandatory insurance coverage of preventive services for women’s health care.

The mandatory coverage of certain preventive services was required by an amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known colloquially as Obamacare. The central feature of PPACA is a mandate that every American purchase a health insurance policy. The IOM report is thus rightly seen as envisioning a mandate within a mandate.

The IOM recommendations on preventive medicine not only would include a “full range” of contraceptives but would also stipulate that the contraceptives be offered without co-pays and exempt from deductibles—preferential treatment not accorded other procedures or prescription drugs. The term contraceptive is impressively flexible, including sterilization and devices and drugs that are known to have a mode of action that includes causing an abortion early in pregnancy. Among the latter is a new drug called ulipristal, or Ella, which is characterized as a morning-after pill, but it can actually work days after conception by “preventing attachment to the uterus,” as a promotional video from the manufacturer describes it.

If HHS follows the IOM’s recommendations, the burdens of the new mandate on individual and institutional conscience, in addition to the assault on sound health care policy, will be immense. Consider just the following impositions:

Insured individuals (single men and women, people of non-reproductive age, and others who have no desire or reason to avail themselves of contraceptives) will lose the ability to purchase plans that do not include this coverage with its exceptional status.

Religious entities and nonprofit groups may lose their ability to limit the scope of the health insurance plans they offer and to exclude practices to which they have religious, moral, and/or practical objections. The contraceptive coverage mandate would put added pressure on colleges and other institutions to submit to attempts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to require them to cover drugs and procedures they find morally objectionable.

Through the inclusion of ulipristal—and, arguably, other drugs or devices that operate at least intermittently in an abortifacient manner—taxpayers may lose another portion of the conscience protections included in PPACA that were indispensable to its passage. While one provision of PPACA allows states to opt out of including in their new exchanges any insurance plan that covers abortion (and several states have already exercised that option), a new mandate to include abortifacient preventive services will conflict with that provision. Certainly the spirit of PPACA’s conscience protections—which are meant to secure the freedom of insurers, providers, and purchasers of insurance alike—would be violated by the mandate.

Finally, the ability of all participants in the health insurance market to purchase plans that meet their needs and reflect their values and priorities will be compromised by adoption of the IOM recommendations. The absence of co-pays and deductibles for one class of drugs or services by no means makes them “free”—it merely shifts all rather than some of their cost to other plan members, an extraordinary situation rendered even more offensive because, for many members, participation in the plan will be wholly or completely involuntary.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has stated that she welcomes the IOM report, which she requested under the law, and that her department will issue its formal “preventive services” list soon. Both sexual activity and use of contraceptives are voluntary behaviors in areas where sensitivity to individual conscience is especially warranted. HHS should not compound the policy errors present in Obamacare by trampling on conscience in the name of medicine.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Charles A. "Chuck" Donovan is president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He was legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee more than three decades ago, worked as a writer for President Reagan, helped lead the Family Research Council for nearly two decades, and most recently was a senior research fellow in religion and civil society at The Heritage Foundation.

Join The Discussion

God Bless America. How can God bless a society that destroys its own children? But-if you don't believe in God then you don't have to worry about conscience or consequences.
The most obvious irony of this sort of law making is I think apparent to citizens of foreign places where we rain smart bombs on people because their government is guilty of "murdering their own citizens". I have never seen a convincing argument for most abortions being anything other than murder. Premeditated, brutal, morally reprehensible and convenient murder. I want no part of this in my government. I do not want to pay for it and I will not ever respect or support any political action that forces it on its people.

Doesn't individual liberty include the right for women to choose what to do with their own body? Granted, I understand, and somewhat agree with what the point of this article, but I would like to know the actual cost of the IOM mandate to those institutions that consider abortion "morally objectionable."

What if someone finds the use of other types of medical care to be "morally objectionable?" Does that mean HHS should scrap those procedures from being covered as well?

I fail to see what a belief in God has to do with having a conscience.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.